The presidential election this week marks a first in the history of the United States when Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris while awaiting sentencing on 34 criminal charges. The president-elect has faced criminal indictments in three other cases as well.
Justice Juan Merchan is scheduled to sentence Trump on those 34 charges on Nov. 26.
In an op-ed published by the Kansas City Star on Friday, journalist Bill Dalton argued that Judge Merchan can honor “the rule of law.”
Dalton writes, “The American people did the unthinkable — they elected a convicted felon president. Judge Juan Merchan should now do what was once unthinkable — force a president-elect to take the oath of office in a jail cell.”
[…]
Dalton continues, “That message needs to be sent because, after Inauguration Day, the rule of law will cease to exist for sitting presidents thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Trump proved Tuesday, aided and abetted by 72 million voters, that crime does indeed pay. He thumbed his nose at America’s once respected system of justice. He made a laughingstock of prosecutors and the judicial process. He turned what used to be a political liability for candidates into a political asset for fundraising.”
Dalton argued that Merchan “should sentence and jail Trump while he is still a private citizen, no better nor more privileged than any of the millions of people who voted for or against him.”
“Merchan should show the same courage that Vice President Mike Pence showed on January 6 when he stood for the rule of law, risking his life and destroying his political career in the process,” writes Dalton.
[…]
Trump is in a position where the rule of law scarcely affects him, regardless of what a judge sentences him to, because of the sheer quantity of political capital backing him. If this happened, he would spend a couple months in a cell and nothing else, at best. So if you think he should be arrested based exclusively on the law itself and no other reasons, sure, that’s justified. But I’m talking impact, here.
I think the overall impact would be negative for the reasons given above. He’d face scarcely any truly proportionate punishment, would learn nothing, would lose nothing, and his supporters would become even more rabid. And all that would mean the political calculus for “is it worth it to commit fraud” either doesn’t change or goes even further in favor of “yes.” What’s the point, then, besides to make us feel a bit better until he inevitably gets released?